this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
128 points (88.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2792 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I've made no secret of the fact that I think that Biden is and always has been (including in 2020) a weak candidate, and that now is not the time to gamble on a weak candidate, especially after the debate just made him appear that much weaker.

But it just struck me that in the unique and bizarre situation in which we find ourselves - running against a brazen criminal with a stated goal of being a dictator fronting for a group of christofascists who already have a playbook for destroying American democracy - Biden has a built-in advantage as the incumbent.

I don't mean the advantage that incumbents are generally presumed to have (he notably does not have that), but a much simpler and more immediate one.

It's disturbingly likely that if/when Trump loses, his christofascist coattail-riders and his legions of angry, hateful and generally heavily-armed chucklefucks are going to literally go to war. They could well end up making Jan. 6 look like the peaceful protest they insist it was, at least in comparison to the violence and bloodshed they'll potentially unleash should their fuhrer lose.

And at that point, it's going to be much better to not have to deal with a transfer of power - to have a president already in place with a full set of aides and well-established communication channels, and to keep that president in office for as long as it takes to withstand the fascists.

As I said, that just struck me, and I haven't fully analyzed it, but I think it has some merit.

And never in my life did I think that things might reach the point, at least in my lifetime, at which I'd be considering the best strategy to combat an impending bloody fascist coup in the US...

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 64 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden knows this government like few others do. If any other Dem candidate were in that office, I'd still want him there consulting during any attempt to overthrow things.

He's sharper than most think. He probably knows the first names of those in charge of almost all levers of power, and probably their spouses and children as well. (Recalling them on the spot, well... let's say I'd probably fail too.)

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

You're describing the role of a Party Elder. And yes that's where he should be.

[–] GroundedGator@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago (4 children)

When Trump does lose, the Roberts court will crown him winner by Christmas. The best hope is for Biden to have enough of a showing in swing states that SCOTUS wouldn't be able to deny it.

[–] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"John [Roberts] has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

-Joe Biden channeling Andrew Jackson (who was, to be clear, a garbage human being and on the wrong side of history, much like most of our current supreme court)

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Stop quoting that time Jackson ignored the Court to do the Trail of Tears goddamnit you might as well put skulls on your uniform

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

But but what if they're inclusive skulls?

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If Roberts attempts something like that, couldn't Biden simply dissolve SCOTUS?

Or, if he couldn't, perhaps add 7 or so lawful (i.e., not fascist) justices to it in advance, so any vote has a reasonable outcome?

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

in acid.

dissolve them in acid.

officially.

But otherwise, I think no, only the house or something can do that.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Congress passed a law setting the size of the court, but it doesn't actually have that constitutional authority. It can only provide for courts below the Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the President and the Senate the power of making (or not making) new SCOTUS judges.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes - that is a very real possibility.

That's actually part of the reason that I've favored dumping Biden and throwing the nomination open and the DNC backing the fuck off and letting the people rally around whoever they might choose - in order to improve the chances that the Democrat nominee wins by enough of a margin to undermine at least most of the grounds upon which the result might be challenged. Biden might be able to accomplish that, but IMO, a candidate that the voters sincerely want rather than one that they'll just hopefully be willing to settle for in the face of the alternative would make it a sure thing.

Of course, that all could be for naught too.

[–] GroundedGator@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The problem is how much recognition anyone else may have to the voting population. People here pay attention. Most voters do not. I can only speculate, but I'd bet that better than 20% of voters don't actually know who the VP is. I'd make a similar wager that more than that didn't know who their congressional representatives are.

Pure speculation, but say that 30% of registered eligible voters are unaware of a new candidate. Probably about 1/3 of those would never vote Democrat anyway. How do you get the remainder excited about the new candidate and fight off the inevitable misinformation in the next 3.5 months?

Anyone that fills that role is going to be starting at zero with a not insignificant number of voters.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The media would take care of that. Everyone would know the new guy within 24 hours.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

When Trump does lose, the Roberts court will crown him winner by Christmas.

Nope. Biden can use his new official executive authority from the supreme court to have Traitorapist Trump arrested the day after the election for his 2020 insurrection "pending trials". The only way Biden could be held accountable is for the court to fix that ruling. And the courts would then have to shift from delaying the trials to speeding them up. Meanwhile Traitorapist Trump is in jail until inaguration.

win - win -win

[–] Commiunism@lemmy.wtf 19 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I feel like what's more likely is Trump actually winning via election fraud, there's conservatives and people connected to conservatives getting arrested even to this year for trying to rig the previous 2020 election, and I highly doubt that they won't try that again. There's also the recent supreme court decision to make president immune from persecution for "official acts during presidency", which can be read as setting the stage for Trump's arrival.

[–] Delusional@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

trump has lied, cheated, and stole his way through life and never faced any consequences. He orchestrated an attack on our country's capital to stop the election from taking place and faced no consequences for it. You can be damn sure he'll try any shady, shitty tactic in the book to try and steal this election as well in fraudulent ways because that's just who he is deep down, a rotten fraudulent conman. That is his essence. His entire being. A dumb piece of shit fraud that will do anything to win and get what he wants because he has never faced consequences for being a piece of shit before.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

That's certainly a possibility, but I don't think it's as likely as others, mostly because the right made a concerted effort to gain control over the balloting process and for the most part resoundingly lost. There are places in which they have the necessary control to rig the election, but they're limited to places that are so thoroughly red that Trump would win them anyway, so aren't going to be relevant. In the places in which it could be relevant, in spite of their determined efforts, I don't think that the right gained enough control over the system to get away with large-scale fraud.

It's still a possibility - we're up against entirely unprincipled people who will stop at literally nothing to impose the bloody tyranny for which they lust - but at least that particular scenario is, I believe, somewhere down on the list of threats.

[–] satanmat@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Yep. Good points.

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

First, most likely Trump will win. So prepare yourself. The few thousand people that make the electoral college difference, are not liking Biden. Additionally the supreme court is now packed so that it is all irrelevant. The supreme court can block and declare a winner at their discretion basically. So it will happen, if not 2024, maybe 2028.

The whole violent uprising and civil war thing is a real threat. The FBI has been shouting this from the rooftops since 2020. If you're only now paying attention, you basically prove the point that Americans are too ignorant of the world immediately around them to even be trusted with such decisions. If Trump wins, there will still be death. Think after parties for NFL or NHL teams. Cars will be flipped and lit on fire. People in body paint and viking hats will shoot rifles into the air. Probably kill a few counter protesters but that will be the new normal.

And again, uniqueness? Lol, this is literally the playbook of the 1930's Germany. Any idiot that doesn't know history, is doomed to repeat it. Really people, education is important.

For history since you don't know it Hindenburg became the democratically elected president of Germany in November of 1932. Hitler, yes that Hitler, got almost 40% of the vote. Does that staunch support percentage sound familiar??? In the runoff he got a bit less but that's because of the German system. Hindenburg was old. Too old. Age was the primary concern of those who voted for him. Sound familiar? By the end of January of 1933 (is this timeline sounding familiar yet? November election, January appointment...) Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor.

Now the US doesn't have a chancellor. But the reason was because the 40% of the country that was pro-Hitler was against EVERYTHING else. You literally could not govern or do anything because these literal Nazis refused because their dear leader didn't win. This was the US playbook for the tea party, and now the GOP shutting down the senate and house. So in the USA assuming the GOP doesn't get blown away of Congress, which nobody is predicting, nobody will have a supermajority. The "Nazis" or GOP, will block everything Legislative. The Supreme court will block and overturn everything Executive and Legislative they don't like with the power of the Judicial.

With the internet and social media, and no rules against it, I perfectly see Trump declaring himself President in Acting of MAGA and setting up home in Maralago or something. Ie, chancellor. His puppets in the government, local, state, and federal will not act without his blessing and will not act against him. Slowly keep passing and stalling government.

Then they wait. Hitler waited and used the time to pass dictatorship laws using the democratic process. Newsflash, this has already happened thanks to Trump 1 presidency! So he literally has to do nothing but live and not die.

In August of 1934, correlating to August of 2025 for our timeline, Hindenburg died. He was old. Hitler declared himself dictator, ie fuhrer. When Biden croaks, Trump declares himself King or whatever. Then what? The supreme court can back him up. All his actions are legalized.

This is not some unique situation the world has never seen. It is literally the American Office vs the British Office. Same damn show ripped off years later without credit to the original with more drama and budget. The American way. This is Hitler 2, the Hollywood remake. And Americans are too fucking stupid to see it.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then the Army recognizes the Vice President as the new president and when Trump attempts to march on Washington he gets to meet the 82nd Airborne out of Fort Liberty or the 101st out of Fort Campbell. Whoever happens to have the Alert Brigade that particular day.

The military mostly hates Trump. If a president gave them an order to end an armed insurgency led by Trump, it would be done by the next morning.

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The military loves Trump. The brass hates Trump. The police love Trump.

You're deluding yourself if you think "what should happen" is the game plan

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

The military voted blue for the first time since Vietnam in 2020. I'm not exaggerating when I use the word hate. The way he talked about POWs and Gold Star families was off putting. Stealing education funding from military children and denying casualties, (which has real consequences for those veterans at the VA), earned him our hatred. Especially that last part. The military has a simple demand for all it does, take care of the wounded. And Trump violated that.

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

just struck me

I mean... I'm glad, I really am....

But this just now occurred to you?

[–] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I've never heard or considered the ops point till now

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

People should be allowed to change their opinions when confronted with new thoughts, ideas, and facts without being degraded like this

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

I know, and I agree, but still...dude...